Last night, John Edwards was blunt and yet evasive about his attitude about equal rights for same-sex couples to marry. He said, “My wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not.”
What’s missing from John Edwards’s statement about opposing equal marriage rights is a justification. Edwards never really explained why he is against giving same-sex couples the right to get married.
Edwards could claim that he is against same-sex marriage because he believes that marriage should exist only between a man and a woman. That’s not an explanation, though. It’s just a restatement of his opposition to equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Edwards has, in the past, indicated that he’s against equal marriage rights because he’s a Southern Baptist. That’s not much of an explanation either, though, unless Edwards is the type of person who believes whatever his church tells him to believe. If that’s the case, then there’s much to fear from a John Edwards presidency. After all, the Southern Baptists believe a lot of outrageous things. Does John Edwards, for instance, believe that it is a wife’s duty to submit to her husband, and obey him as her master? If John Edwards rejects that Southern Baptist teaching, then why won’t he reject the Southern Baptist opposition to same-sex marriage?
Democratic voters deserve a real explanation from John Edwards. If he wants to earn voters’ support, he ought to be willing to justify his opinions, not just state them without explanation. What about marriage between two people of the same sex does John Edwards think is wrong? Why?
It isn’t enough for Edwards to merely claim that it’s not a relevant issue because he would not use his power as President impose his religious views on the American people. First of all, the moral reasoning John Edwards uses to justify denying equal marriage rights to all American adults is a relevant reflection on his general character and psychological fitness to be President. Secondly, in spite of what Edwards claims about keeping his prejudiced religious beliefs out of his work as President, he’s made it quite clear that religion would be part of the basis for his opposition as President to legalizing same-sex marriage.
The issue of marriage equality opens up a view to a rather shadowy side of John Edwards. Behind the smile and the talk of uniting America, John Edwards seems quite willing to accept the idea of two Americas with two standards of legal rights.
(Source: CNN, July 23, 2007)
Exactly my sentiments. The person in the audience who asked the question bungled up the opportunity that he had to take issue with Edward’s answer—why is he against gay marriage? I can’t believe I read some blogs just before reading your post, where Edwards’ answer is taken to mean a victory for gay people; it, in fact, reeks of such anti-gay prejudice.
I am neither gay nor American, but I have lived in America for a long time now to know that nobody bites the bullet—not where I come from, and certainly not here in America.
It is good to know where these Fan FAre Candidates stand, even if they are not capable of putting it in writing for you.
Lets consider that Gay Rights firstly is just one of many expressions of Human Rights.
Lets look at what it is all really worth, and with respect to the Consitution. We should account for the Right of Free Expression in Amendment I in the Bill of Rights, and the fact that marriage is not in it. Thats for starters.
“Marriage is not something that I have ever seen as an institution, being that, statistically, most heterosexual marriages do not last; It is a personal commitment.”
http://unity2008.org/SameSex.html
The basis of the instution, being legally married was so that men would become financially reponsible where prior to the law, wives were just abanded when going for an upgrade.
So the concept of commitment overrides the concept of institution as a premise for a constitutional argument.
As a psychologist years ago, and as a human, I discovered that everyone was actually quite different. That there was an infinite dimension to the psyche as there is a universe.
The concept of institution is obsolete when we account for this, and Amendment 1 can be argued as the foundation argument.
In other words, if Gay Rights are not accounted for, then the Dignity of Human Rights is not sincerely served.
I don’t think the Democrats understand this, and could easily paint their own style of graffiti onto the constitution like the Bush administraiton has these past 7 years.
The Constitution is like a magnificant painting, and needs to be restored. Then Human Rights for all can be adequately regarded.
Sincerely Yours,
Orion Karl Daley
Presidential Candidate for 2008
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Balanced Party http://unity2008.org
New York, NY, USA -
I am waiting for the day that everyone’s attitude towards those who suffer inequality in society still will be:
“You’re gay/trans/atheist/nonwhite/female/nonchristian/what have you. That’s all well and good, but so what?”
Er .
“You’re gay/trans/atheist/nonwhite/female/nonchristian/whatever.”
Correction.